Particularly after the intervening decision in Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853 (2015), the district court was not obligated to defer to prison officials' arguments that it found to be exaggerated or not credible

The court properly considered the less restrictive rules that Texas applies in its women's prisons and the less restrictive rules that most other state and federal prisons apply

The lower courts improperly applied the burden of proof in deference to prison officials

The record does not support the prison's assertions that Holt's half-inch beard would create an insurmountable administrative burden, problems with identification should he escape, and a place to hide contraband

The prison was required, under their burden of proof, to show unique circumstances that would prevent them from accommodating a half-inch beard where most other state prisons and all federal prisons would do so

The preliminary injunction the district court issued in its December 6 Order automatically expired by statute 90 days thereafter, or on March 6, 2014

The injunction's expiration precludes this Court from granting specific relief through a decree of a conclusive character

The Court should deny appellants' motion for partial stay of the district court's order, requesting the Court delay the July 1, 2014, deadline the district court set for implementing the RDP statewide and allow a quarterly phase-in of the RDP

The district court's order granting the United States' motion for a preliminary injunction should be affirmed

The United States had moved for a preliminary injunction seeking an order requiring the appellants to provide kosher meals to all prisoners with a sincere religious belief for keeping kosher and enjoining the implementation of certain aspects of the new religious diet program that the United States asserted violated RLUIPA

The district court correctly dismissed plaintiffs' Title II and Section 504 claims because the plaintiffs do not have a right to contest transfer and the closure of the two state institutions under Title II, Section 504, or Olmstead

The decree is valid, and that there are no changed circumstances which could justify granting the City's motion to vacate the decree

The City knew about the issues it now raises, including the cost of an unrelated settlement to remedy prison conditions and alleged wrongdoing by Sal Perricone, a former Assistant United States Attorney involved in negotiating the police department decree, well before the decree was entered

The decree does not violate the Fair Labor Standards Act and that the involvement of Perricone, who resigned before the decree was finalized, did not affect the negotiation of the decree

Prison officials improperly relied on their own interpretation of plaintiffs' religious tenets in banning tobacco and that the district court appropriately called on them to show they considered less restrictive alternatives before they imposed the tobacco ban

The district court correctly relied on other prisons' policies permitting ritual tobacco when it concluded that a total tobacco ban was not the least restrictive means available for controlling contraband and ensuring prison security

Holt's application of RLUIPA in similar circumstances shows Alabama failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that its challenged practice is the least restrictive means of meeting its compelling interests

Properly understood, Olmstead establishes community placement as the default for people for whom community placement is appropriate but who cannot express a preference either for or against community placement

The Fifth Circuit erred by failing to require that TDCJ explain why the less restrictive practices advocated by Thunderhorse were not feasible, or why the TDCJ’s inconsistent application of the grooming policy did not indicate that less restrictive means were possible

Because the courts of appeals, including the Fifth Circuit, have generally correctly applied RLUIPA’s standards, this case does not warrant plenary review, and the Court should therefore either deny the petition or, in the alternative, grant the petition and summarily reverse the Fifth Circuit

The court clearly erred in finding the Commonwealth’s efforts reasonably diligent; abused its discretion in failing to consider Puerto Rico’s degree compliance and ability to comply; and erred as a matter of law in concluding that reasonable diligence alone could excuse substantial noncompliance with the stipulated order

The automatic stay provision of the PLRA and defendants’ motion to modify the stipulated order did not moot the appeal or render it unripe, and that defendants failed to prove their alleged inability to comply with the court’s order

Disregarding rulings that testimony taken solely as a proffer will be subject to
cross-examination and rebuttal if later admitted to the record is clear and
unequivocal legal error

While summary denial of cross-examination is prejudicial per se, prejudice is
further demonstrated because the proffered testimony was central to the denial
and could have been countered by cross-examination and rebuttal

District court did not abuse its discretion in denying the State’s motion because there has not been a change in the governing law sufficient to warrant early termination of the remedial orders in this case

District court did not abuse discretion in imposing civil contempt sanctions
on District of Columbia when it failed to comply with remedial orders
requiring timely payment of vendors responsible for providing day-to-day
care and services to persons no longer served in institutions

Amicus curiae suggestions may be submitted to crt.amicus@usdoj.gov. Submissions should include case name, docket number, circuit/district court name, a brief description of the case and issue, and the current status if known.